They're still in business, but I have no idea how well they're doing financially. I picked that video as a general example of how easy it would be to support standard controllers with portables.
Nintendo has actually been experimenting with a number of things in the past that do have connections to the portable tablet/console idea. The Gamecube had an LCD screen attachment accessory, as well as Gameboy interaction with certain games. The Wii U is a continuation of those ideas. It might turn out to be too conservative of a continuation, but that remains to be seen. They have such strong 1st party software properties that they seem to be able to get away with more conservative hardware.
The console market numbers haven't declined, just the total gaming market has grown with mobile and web based gaming attracting many, many more casuals. How does this change the console market? It doesn't. People pay a lot more for console games, because to them they are worth it over a $5 mobile game. I don't see how EA going after money in a new market proves the current market is now void.
One of the points in the article was that the console market's standard five year cycle for hardware/software is not an ideal business model. It's more of a stop and start model, instead of allowing a more consistent flow to development and sales. Plus, if you consider the growing popularity of smartphone/tablet gaming, digital markets for games, and the significant increase in portable chipset processing power, why wouldn't it make sense to move away from the box-under-the-TV model during the next 3-4 years? I'm not saying that the current model for consoles is already dead, but rather that this upcoming generation of consoles will likely be the last where it makes sense to have an immobile box connected to the TV, rather than selling a powerful portable that also connects to the TV and communicates with controllers.
Do phone games count the same as full fledged console games? They are time wasters whereas modern console games usually tell an elaborate story, much like a movie. Mafia Wars isn't a fucking game. It's a distraction more entertaining than your job.
some of them tell an elaborate story, some are just Bulletstorm or Quake. The line has been blurred for quite a while.
i think what supersonic was saying that with console games, you make time for them. with mobile games, you don't. you play them when you're looking to waste time away.
You can find smartphone/tablet games right now that tell an elaborate story and have the same number of hours of gameplay as a console game. It doesn't represent the majority of the market, but it doesn't have to because the market is so gigantic. However, what I'm really saying and what I think you're missing is that it makes sense for portables like smartphones/tablets to eventually take the place of separate game handhelds or game consoles. It's not an either/or type of thing for the games that you could play or whether or not it was portable. It would be all of those things in one piece of hardware. Want to play an elaborate time consuming game on your big screen TV? You have that option. Want to play a quick time waster on the train to work? You have that option. And it would be an advantage to game developers because they could sell all those types of games to you after a single hardware purchase, rather than needing you to buy three or four different things to cover the bases.
trust me some ppl deffinitely put time aside to play farmville and stuff in fact that's why I quit playing them. too time consuming.
Tablets will never replace consoles as the "go to" system for gamers. If the PC isn't the dominant force in the market what chance do portable screens have?
Why not? What would the drawback be to a single piece of hardware that could operate both as an HD portable gaming device and a HD device that connects to your TV and has the same functions as today's consoles? Portable hardware like smartphones/tablets are maybe a year away from being able to run 360/PS3 level games. Apple's A6 chip may have that capability in March.
Smartphones will not be capable of 360/PS3 level games in two years let alone one. So you're saying a year from now tablets will be 7 years behind in terms of games tech? Those consoles will have been out for 7 years by the time tablets supposedly reach the same level. All the games I've seen on the ipad have been sub ps2 quality. Also I'd rather have a machine that was built primarily for playing games rather than being able to play games on the side. I don't want my gaming experience to be using a jack of all trades, master of none.
I posted this chart before, but I'll post it here again for reference: The original iPad used the A4 chip. Epic, which developed a number of 360 games, said that their experience with the A4 while developing the iOS game Infinity Blade was that it seemed to be the equivalent of a single 360 core. As you can see above, the A5 chip currently in use in the iPad 2 is waaaaay beyond double the performance of the A4, which means it's probably already close to 360 performance. If the A6 continues that along that performance increase curve compared to the A5, there's not really any doubt that it will be able to run 360/PS3 level games. The A6 will likely be on the market by March/April 2012.
I think the iPad/iPhone are great for certain kinds of games but, currently, they're poor for console style games. I think they'd need an alternative control method if they were to try and replace consoles in the future.
Did you watch the OnLive video I posted? They're using a wireless standard controller to play the game on the iPad, which is no different than how a console works. The smartphone/tablet would simply replace the immobile console box. All the rest would be identical to how a contemporary console works.
Outside of the iPad tablets are too unique to currently be used as real consoles. You need a standard that they are all built to to ensure compatibility with all games. All PS3's are the same but all Android tablets are not! Price will also be a massive factor, tablets seem to come with a massive premium, £399 for an iPad 2 is much higher a price than the Wii or 360 have ever been and when the PS3 was priced at those levels it didn't exactly sell too well. Another problem would be the refresh rate at which iPad's seem to be coming out. We have had 2 different models in 2 years with a rumoured new one on the horizon. You would need to keep a model standard for at least 4 years so that it is compatible with all the games released for it. No one is going to pay £399 a year to play the newest games and developers are not going to want to create different cut down versions for every years iPad that was released. With gaming people like to see the hardware pushed to the limits and an iPad 2 at the limit is surely going to create something that the iPad cannot keep up with already. For me the tablet would then also HAVE to be enabled for wireless video, I wouldn't want to have to keep plugging it in and unplugging it from my TV every time I wanted to change from gaming to browsing and vice versa. And don't even suggest you use the tablet to play the game, the screen is far too small and I don't want to go back to feeling like I am gaming in the late 80's early 90's.
Don't you and others already own multiple consoles, handheld gaming devices, AND a smartphone to boot? Yes, you do. How is having the smartphone or tablet that you own replacing the function of the separate gaming handheld + the separate gaming console going to be more expensive? Playing the game on a tablet with a wireless controller would already be better than playing the game on a PSP or DS. The screen is bigger and you can use a full size controller. I'm not sure I buy the idea that plugging/unplugging would be considered a deal breaker vs. having to buy two separate pieces of hardware. Anyway, iOS 5 will fully support all forms of wireless streaming, and iOS 4 already supports certain types of wireless streaming, like video. You'll still need to buy an Apple TV though, which is why I think alot of people would be fine with simply using an HDMI adaptor and quickly plugging/unplugging. Do people keep their smartphones for 4 years? No. I'm sure that developers will have a certain sweet spot for their games, and there will be games that don't run on older devices, but since software typically lags behind hardware in terms of taking advantage of it's capabilities, I doubt there would be much more of a problem than the current console model. It takes developers several years to really max out consoles.
I am not talking about me per se but the common people who already live almost hand to mouth but still have to find the money for Christmas/birthday presents for their children. At £100-£200 the Wii and 360 have been offering pretty good value for money and seeing as your normal console has a 5+ year lifespan where it will still play all the most recent games released for it, it works out good enough value over time. A £399 tablet that WILL be replaced with a newer model in 12 months is not going to appeal to the normal person. We are living in very difficult times, an example of this is the 16-20% energy price rise that is currently happening over here. The average home is going to end up spending an extra £220/year on its energy and they estimate 5.5 million homes will be living in fuel poverty this year. Can't see them justifying a £399 tablet but a £99 Wii, well that will keep the kids quiet just as well. Firstly I very very very rarely use my handheld consoles, I haven't turned my 3DS on since I got the thing! For me wireless video would be a massive selling point for the whole experience. I wan't to be able to sit on my sofa, perhaps browsing this site, and then decide I want to play a game and without having to get up and plug the damned thing into my TV just switch channel, pick up my control and start. I don't have to plug my PS3 or 360 in everytime I want to use it to play games, why should I wan't to start doing so going forward? But we are not talking about smartphones, we are talking about home games consoles which you have suggested will be replaced by tablets. You cannot take a reletively cheap product like a console that lasts 5+ years and expect to replace it with an expensive product that the same company then replaces 1 year later! Even if it lasted 2 years thats still not enough, if chips do progress the way you say they will then the iPad 2 will be useless in the graphics department when the iPad 4 is out in 2 years time and games are designed to be run on it! If your scenario really worked in the real world then most people would be playing games on the PC which needs a certain amount of updates each year to keep it capable. The majority of people would not be gaming on cheap little consoles that are outdated but at the same time and most importantly kept the same for 5 years and as a result mean they are a good investment in the long term. 1 £200-£300 payment every 5 years or £399 every 1-2 years? I know which option most people are going to pick.